On 15,000 and 500: Tendulkar and Boucher can rest easy
It is perhaps only appropriate that to follow-up my last post on Curiously Significant Numbers, I should take note of two new staggering numbers that have entered the test pantheon: 15,000 and 500. I admit to finding both of these numbers slightly disorienting because of the cricketing feats they are associated with: the former with Test runs and the latter with Test wicketkeeping catches. Both appear unlikely to be ever broken, and I suspect, in future years will take on an aura similar to Jack Hobbs’ first-class aggregate runs or Wilfred Rhodes’ aggregate wickets records.
Which brings me to what I consider the most interesting feature of these records: they are associated with international Test cricket, not domestic cricket. Some of the most staggering records of aggregate accomplishments of yesteryears had huge contributions from domestic cricket performances. Most of those will never be broken. Check out the list of aggregate records for first-class wickets. I find it extremely implausible that anyone from the present era will get remotely close.
What the modern era is ensuring that most cricketers will play little domestic cricket once they have graduated into international cricket. A busy schedule dedicated to keeping three formats ticking over ensures that a cricketer moves on from domestic cricket with only an occasional backward glance. Most of the cricket he will play from that point on will be international cricket. Domestic cricket produces these cricketers and from then on is only able to draw upon their talent and skill occasionally.
And of course, the busy international schedule, the constant traveling, also ensures that most modern cricketers will never play as late into their lives as cricketers in the past. Very few modern cricketers will play late into their 40s; an international cricketer who is done with international cricket is not just sick of cricket by then, he is probably also carrying an extremely sore body that will diminish any enthusiasm he might have for going back to domestic cricket for a few years.
So, today’s most staggering records are likely to originate in international cricket. And thanks to the developing unlikelihood of modern cricketers ever playing as much test cricket as Sachin Tendulkar was able to, we might be witnessing the casting into stone of many test records. Muralitharan’s 800 or Rahul Dravid’s record for most non-wicketkeeping catches seem likely to endure forever.
In that sense, Tendulkar and Boucher’s records might also be marking the end of an era in cricketing statistics; the most standout cricketing records in this era of limited-overs cricket will come from those formats. We’ve already seen Tendulkar and Wasim Akram set benchmarks there in batting and bowling. The T20 world will soon start throwing up its own standout figures. (I’m not sure I will be paying attention by then, but future cricket fans most assuredly will).
Before I conclude, one rather dismissive response to these numbers deserves to have the poor argument at its core exposed. This dismissal takes the following form: X’s feat was only possible because he played so many games; anybody could do that if they played as many games. Two problems: simply having your name penciled into the team’s roster, does not, the last time I checked, also result in a charity allocation of runs, wickets or catches. Second, to play those many games also requires selection for that number. Selectors, no matter how maligned, aren’t complete morons; they seem extremely unlikely to keep on picking a non-performer. Aggregate records are revealing of consistency, application and fitness and deserve respect, not facile contempt.
Which brings me to what I consider the most interesting feature of these records: they are associated with international Test cricket, not domestic cricket. Some of the most staggering records of aggregate accomplishments of yesteryears had huge contributions from domestic cricket performances. Most of those will never be broken. Check out the list of aggregate records for first-class wickets. I find it extremely implausible that anyone from the present era will get remotely close.
What the modern era is ensuring that most cricketers will play little domestic cricket once they have graduated into international cricket. A busy schedule dedicated to keeping three formats ticking over ensures that a cricketer moves on from domestic cricket with only an occasional backward glance. Most of the cricket he will play from that point on will be international cricket. Domestic cricket produces these cricketers and from then on is only able to draw upon their talent and skill occasionally.
And of course, the busy international schedule, the constant traveling, also ensures that most modern cricketers will never play as late into their lives as cricketers in the past. Very few modern cricketers will play late into their 40s; an international cricketer who is done with international cricket is not just sick of cricket by then, he is probably also carrying an extremely sore body that will diminish any enthusiasm he might have for going back to domestic cricket for a few years.
So, today’s most staggering records are likely to originate in international cricket. And thanks to the developing unlikelihood of modern cricketers ever playing as much test cricket as Sachin Tendulkar was able to, we might be witnessing the casting into stone of many test records. Muralitharan’s 800 or Rahul Dravid’s record for most non-wicketkeeping catches seem likely to endure forever.
In that sense, Tendulkar and Boucher’s records might also be marking the end of an era in cricketing statistics; the most standout cricketing records in this era of limited-overs cricket will come from those formats. We’ve already seen Tendulkar and Wasim Akram set benchmarks there in batting and bowling. The T20 world will soon start throwing up its own standout figures. (I’m not sure I will be paying attention by then, but future cricket fans most assuredly will).
Before I conclude, one rather dismissive response to these numbers deserves to have the poor argument at its core exposed. This dismissal takes the following form: X’s feat was only possible because he played so many games; anybody could do that if they played as many games. Two problems: simply having your name penciled into the team’s roster, does not, the last time I checked, also result in a charity allocation of runs, wickets or catches. Second, to play those many games also requires selection for that number. Selectors, no matter how maligned, aren’t complete morons; they seem extremely unlikely to keep on picking a non-performer. Aggregate records are revealing of consistency, application and fitness and deserve respect, not facile contempt.
Post a Comment